They’ve been intentionally filling up the dam to cause maximum damage: https://hydroweb.theia-land.fr/hydroweb/view/L_kakhovka?lang=en , https://tweet.lambda.dance/NOELreports/status/1666012180217462785#m

Also the constant shelling of civilian population in Kherson ever since they’ve been pushed out. You know, the Kherson they say is part of Russia. (Same with Zaporizhia).

And they’re not treating people of occupied territories as ‘their people’ anyway - no free movement with Russia itself.

(Also, you can’t destroy a dam like this by ‘shelling’. It takes a very big bomb or intentional demolition to do that, and Russians have been controlling the dam for a long time.)

EDIT: and they’re shelling Kherson right now as evacuation is taking place.

1. Not really ‘anxiety’ yet, more of ‘concern’ and ‘interest’. There may be anxiety later if we turn into tornado country.
2. Yes. I don’t have and will never have a car, I don’t replace appliances until they are destroyed/unrepairable, I avoid stuff that looks nice if I can’t justify it.
3. No. But I live in one of the more ‘resilient’ areas. May change in future.
4. We’re still increasing the rate we’re adding CO2 (though this will change soon), so no, we’ll not limit it below 2C. There is no political will for a drastic WW2-style effort to go carbon-zero in a short time (even if it’s technically achievable). Temperatures will keep rising until CO2 levels actually start decreasing, and there may be more positive feedback effects (methane, water) that will make them rise beyond that point. I don’t think we’ll level off below 4C. If positive feedbacks kick in, the limit is unpredictable, may even be 8C. We will be able to reverse either of those (unless we go full Venus), but at an extreme human cost in the latter case.
5. Absolutely useful, as a part of the solution. People often say we shouldn’t do this, we should do that, (solar, nuclear, reforestation, carbon capture, less cows, geoengineering etc.) - you can’t have everyone do one thing and you shouldn’t have all your eggs in one basket - we need to do everything at once (well, I don’t think geoengineering is a good idea anytime soon). Of course CCS should not be used as an excuse to emit carbon elsewhere (see also: biomass, biofuels). If we get hit by positive feedback effects, we will need to be drastically carbon negative - and for that, CCS (or geoengineering) is needed (reforestation only works until you, uh, reforest everything).
6. Yes, but not as described on said post - we need support for worst-hit countries, and refugees from those countries (this may include moving entire populations in case of small island nations). I don’t support giving money to large semi-fascist regimes like China (and increasingly India) unless it involves directly supporting ways to replace their carbon-based economies. It will not happen and we will pay for the consequences. I.e. I don’t support ‘climate justice’ here, I support ‘stopping climate change’.

Hi! Long-time reddit and fediverse lurker. Expecting to stop lurking reddit since I can’t stand its official website/app. I write random lowish-level open source things (C++,D,Rust) mostly for my own use. I also bake and I’m trying to clean up and open source my recipes (see https://codeberg.org/Kiith/recipes/src/branch/master/vanilkove-rozky.md). Based on some browsing this seems like the sanest lemmy instance.

I think we’re soon going to get to the point when anything other than solar/wind gets rejected on the financial basis, except cases not covered by solar/wind (still need some baseload).

As solar gets cheaper, even baseload/heating should be viable - there are many energy storage methods that are ‘inefficient’ but scale better than li-ion - thermal storage, various ‘heavy’ battery chemistries, even making hydrogen or synfuels - you can have 50% energy loss if it costs 50% of the alternatives and you’d be unable to use it on peak sunlight anyway.